re boy--who had shown genius
from an infant, as all true artists do. Sir -------- took him into his
studio and gave him lessons. It would have been unlike Sir --------, who
was open-hearted but close-fisted, to give anything else. But the boy
contrived to support his mother and sister. That fellow, who is now as
arrogant a stickler for the dignity of art as you or my Lord Chancellor
may be for that of the bar, stooped then to deal clandestinely with
fancy shops, and imitate Watteau on fans. I have two hand-screens that
he painted for a shop in Rathbone Place. I suppose he may have got
ten shillings for them, and now any admirer of Frank's would give L100
apiece for them."

"That is the true soul in which genius lodges, and out of which fire
springs," cried Darrell cordially. "Give me the fire that lurks in
the flint, and answers by light the stroke of the hard steel. I'm glad
Lionel has won a friend in such a man. Sidney Branthwaite's son married
Vance's sister--after Vance had won reputation?"

"No; while Vance was still a boy. Young Arthur Branthwaite was an
orphan. If he had any living relations, they were too poor to assist
him. He wrote poetry much praised by the critics (they deserve to be
hanged, those critics!)--scribbled, I suppose, in old Vance's journal;
saw Mary Vance a little before her father died; fell in love with her;
and on the strength of a volume of verse, in which the critics all
solemnly deposed to his surpassing riches--of imagination, rushed to the
altar, and sacrificed a wife to the Muses! Those villanous critics
will have a dark account to render in the next world! Poor Arthur
Branthwaite! For the sake of our old friend, his father, I bought a
copy of his little volume. Little as the volume was, I could not read it
through."

"What!--below contempt?"

"On the contrary, above comprehension! All poetry praised by critics
now-a-days is as hard to understand as a hieroglyphic. I own a weakness
for Pope and common sense. I could keep up with our age as far as Byron;
after him I was thrown out. However, Arthur was declared by the critics
to be a great improvement on Byron--more 'poetical in form'--more
'aesthetically artistic'--more 'objective' or 'subjective' (I am sure I
forget which; but it was one or the other, nonsensical, and not English)
in his views of man and nature. Very possibly. All I know is--I bought
the poems, but could not read them; the critics read them, but did not
buy. All th